Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Kindling for the Bonfires

Evil is a privation, a want or lack of some good or multiplicity of goods. This principle also finds applicability in the sphere of knowledge. There are books that, by virtue of their publication and continued existence, so corrupt, distort, and occlude the perception of reality that they decrease the sum total of knowledge in the cosmos; these are books that function as intellectual black holes, actively negating knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, leaving the void of ignorance and depravity in place of these. It would have been better for all the world had they never been written, or, having once been written, that they had been consigned to the flames, so that we could discuss the temperature at which ignorance burns.

I'll not impose upon this the artificial and unworkable constraint of an arbitrary number; the number of such desolators of the mind is as the sand upon the shore. We shall content ourselves with whatever number of such works we happen to submit.

My initial submissions: The collected works of the Marquis de Sade - Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom, 120 Days of Sodom, Juliette, etc. It matters not that some philosopher or critic somewhere has written of his transgressive problematizing of this or that, nor that some poet or philosopher may have written something clever under the influence of de Sade. To the flames, go.

Comments (121)

Ah! A public book burning! A good sign that civilization isn't completely dead.

I toss in Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation. A literary critic trying to bring an end to literary criticism by means of a critique of literary criticism. A wet blanket on a weekly book club meeting, to say the least. And while we're at it, the whole offensive pile of Jaques Derrida's output.

I agree Da Vinci Code is garbage. But does it really rise to the level of being publicly burnable? I think even many middle-brows quickly grew too embarrassed to mention having enjoyed it in the wake of the film version. But then again, perhaps you are right.

I don't know. Maybe. It has been so long since I read it that it is a bit hazy, but I'm uncertain as to whether Kuhn was really arguing for a "science is just another perspectival discourse" view of the matter.

He said he wasn't. But in that case, he should have done things a _whole lot_ differently. And the history certainly wasn't good enough to justify the wretched and mischievous philosophy. It's done a lot of harm, that's for sure. I can still recall the first time I heard a non-philosopher use the word "paradigm" in a semi-Kuhnian sense as though it were just some ordinary word. Gave me the creeps. Now it's used that way all over the place, of course.

Well, my vague sense of the matter is that he wasn't attempting to go all postmodern on science, but that he intended to critique naive views of scientific progress, falsificationism, etc., only to do so in a sloppy manner. Scientific research does tend to occur within broad research programmes, so in that limited sense, the paradigm idea is not so foul; but that is hardly all that remains to be said of the matter. We wouldn't say, unless we are Robert Sungenis, that heliocentrism is a mere paradigm.

Well, I suppose we could, but just as long as you realize that in so doing, Hans Kung's Theology For The Third Millennium goes down with it (Kung tries to apply Kuhn's benighted thesis to theology). Eh, you probably wouldn't mind. Neither would I.

This isn't kindling--more like lighter fluid. But this thread does bring to mind one of my favorite quotations from Cassius Jackson Keyser's book Mathematical Philosophy, p. 17:

Indeed, if the pretentious books produced in these troubled years by men without logical insight or a sense of logical obligation were gathered into a heap and burned, they would thus produce, in the form of a bright bonfire the only light they are qualified to give.

"I agree Da Vinci Code is garbage. But does it really rise to the level of being publicly burnable?"

Indeed it does. The New Class high-brows always had Bertrand Russell, Joseph Campbell and their entire
academic milieu to confirm them in their unbelief. The bourgoise needed their indifference to be entertainingly justified by a grand conspiracy theory, complete with a film adaptation. Countless thousands are more vacuous for the experience.

I'm wondering if some of the books (Das Kapital & Mein Kampf) that inflicted the most damage were actually ever read. In the case of Marx the validity of much of his diaganosis was quite accurate. Unfortunately, it gave his prognosis undeserved credibility.

Well, there is a logical conundrum here. If the book really ought to be burned, it's for the simple reason that (hey Mike, check out Maximos' thesis, speaking of not reading what you are criticizing) reading it will be damaging to your intellectual health. You ban a book from the same motive that you put one on a required reading list. If the right books go on the right lists, a public service is rendered.

Not into burning books myself. If an author's ideas are wrong or dangerous, let them be shown as such in open, hospitable discussion. Those eager to burn a book may even have something to learn from the author.

Step2,
Your source says how many copies were purchased, not how many were read. It also indicates sales took off after he took power, thanks to his government's bulk purchase and not prior. I think Hitler's rise was due to factors far greater than his talent for writing persuasive polemics.

However, Kyle R. Cupp seems to think "we may even have something to learn from the author."

Not into burning books myself. If an author's ideas are wrong or dangerous, let them be shown as such in open, hospitable discussion. Those eager to burn a book may even have something to learn from the author.

Another reason I’m opposed to book-burning: If we want to have a society in which there is freedom to express and discuss one’s ideas, we have to keep open the possibility that books will be written that are devilish and dangerous. To impose some authority to destroy books deemed to be evil hinders the freedom of thought and expression of everyone. It may be all well and good if the authority has the moral sense to discern which books are suitable for the public good and which are not, but I see no way to guarantee that the authority has such moral sense. In our morally bankrupt society, I certainly wouldn’t trust any authority with that power.

I nominate the collected works of Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club -- as much as I enjoyed it -- included. I think they adequately fill the requirements, particularly "leaving the void of ignorance and depravity."

Oh, and Philip Pullman's Golden Compass trilogy -- whatever it's official title is. Child sacrifices have never sat well with me.

Is asserting a couple of counterpoints tantamount to wringing one’s hands?

This thread is not a discussion about the moral legitimacy of book burning, Kyle. Clearly we've already decided in favor of it. Now we're just going to get down to burning some books. Unless you've got a pernicious tome to offer to the flames, move along.

What, you don't want to leave 120 Days of Sodom lying around for your children to engage in open, hospitable discussion and thus expand their minds?

Nope. De Sade's works may possess a certain formal literary quality, but the notion that they exhibit any sort of profundity that renders them worth preserving is just bunkum. You can lend eloquence to discussions of unspeakable perversions and depravities, but in the end, you're still addressing abominations which St. Paul indicated it is shameful even to name. You're not even putting lipstick on a pig; you're engaged in a quintessential act of nihilism: associating the good of beautiful, eloquent uses of language, a distinguishing characteristic of humanity, even the divine image in man, with infernal and blasphemous subjects. Seen in this light, such works are the literary analogue of a black mass.

Ah, the smell of burning hellish books reminds me of the olden days when our government allowed us unwashed peasants to burn leaves in the fall...makes we want to break out in song! Books are burning, Lord...Kumbayah! With all the heat we're generating, how bout roasting some weenies?

I'm particularly incensed at Mr. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Metaphysics of Morals"... in German. Burn.

La Mettrie, man is nothing but a machine, the ultimate blurring of ontogenies, the greatest category mistake of all. An idea that for the worst has seeped into everyday language ,lent itself to dehumanization in various fields, spread it's pernicious self down through the centuries, and has lent itself to power grubbers and statist thugs the world over.

Margaret Sanger, but I think Planned Parenthood has beat us to it. From what I've heard, they've been buying her old books and releasing "edited" copies ever since it became unfashionable to talk of blacks and Catholics in terms of "society's undesirables."

T. Hanski says: Now what exactly is odious about a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good?

Does this mean if killing all Muslims in the United States would send a stark message to terrorists and, consequently, deter them from committing any future terrorist attacks; this genocide is not only justified but is moral?

"Now what exactly is odious about a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good?"

That rationalization has been served up to justify the most hideous of acts; Hiroshima, euthanasia, warehousing of the poor, etc. etc.

Utilitarism is consequentialism in full flower. Let's toss John Stuart Mill into the pit. And Georg Berkeley sounds like a candidate, though I never heard of him. Better to be too zealous than too lax.

Oh, about the first 60 pages of Of Grammatology. I think that would qualify me to win the bet though.

Just kidding, I really did struggle through the whole thing about 10 years ago. I'd say I would have found his cafe philosophe obscurantism just silly in a clever and erudite way (the sort of thing that confirms most folks in the idea that philosophy is just word games played by smart people and designed to make them feel stupid) if it weren't that so many bright and directionless young literary students of our time (much like yourself, it would appear) had actually taken him half as seriously as he was taking himself. Of course I immediately was able to "deconstruct" the disastrously erroneous presuppositions on which Derrida's thesis is based, the more publicized of which I need not mention, but chiefly the idea that logos doctrine is something that could have been originally understood at all in terms of presuppositions, instead of the immediate apprehension of reality. But (ehem) "what is truth?"

The trouble with the philosophes is that they have always been accepted rather on the basis of the fashionable political positions which they espouse, instead of the rigor of their thought and the light that it brings. The obscurantism of Derrida and his kind is what is so pernicious. Philosophy, you see, is not for academics--it is for people; the philosopher is either a public servant or a public menace.

But of course I'm neither an academic, nor a trained philosopher, nor an ex-pat living in Paris. I'm just some guy. So I suppose I could be just all wrong. Being that the former is true, the latter likely is as well.

De Sade's works may possess a certain formal literary quality, but the notion that they exhibit any sort of profundity that renders them worth preserving is just bunkum. You can lend eloquence to discussions of unspeakable perversions and depravities, but in the end, you're still addressing abominations which St. Paul indicated it is shameful even to name. You're not even putting lipstick on a pig; you're engaged in a quintessential act of nihilism: associating the good of beautiful, eloquent uses of language, a distinguishing characteristic of humanity, even the divine image in man, with infernal and blasphemous subjects. Seen in this light, such works are the literary analogue of a black mass.

Maximos, at the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up to my host, I really must say "bravo" to this post. Bravo. As Letterman once said to Schaeffer, "you've crystallized my thoughts exactly."

...The trouble with the philosophes is that they have always been accepted rather on the basis of the fashionable political positions which they espouse, instead of the rigor of their thought and the light that it brings.

I'd say I would have found his cafe philosophe obscurantism just silly in a clever and erudite way (the sort of thing that confirms most folks in the idea that philosophy is just word games played by smart people and designed to make them feel stupid). . .

Ahhh. So your ability to understand is the universal standard. If something is obscure to you, then darn, it must be obscure for everyone!

Of course I immediately was able to "deconstruct" the disastrously erroneous presuppositions on which Derrida's thesis is based, the more publicized of which I need not mention, but chiefly the idea that logos doctrine is something that could have been originally understood at all in terms of presuppositions, instead of the immediate apprehension of reality. But (ehem) "what is truth?"

For the sake of my curiousity, what are some of the "disastrously erroneous presuppositions" you're talking about?

I can't follow the last part of this paragraph. You're saying that Derrida says the logos is all about "presuppositions" (propositions?) as opposed to some immediate apprehension of reality? This seems like a non sequitor in terms of Of Grammatology, but I'm hardly an expert on that book.

Does this mean if killing all Muslims in the United States would send a stark message to terrorists and, consequently, deter them from committing any future terrorist attacks; this genocide is not only justified but is moral?

Oh boy, what a bizarre and utterly unrealistic scenario.

And what does it have to do with idea of consenquentialism - or a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good? Unless you think that consenquentialism defines as "good" anything that promotes one´s goals and is completely neutral about the choice of the means. In that case I think you should acquaint yourself better with the concept.

And, by the way, I don,t think killing every moslem in the US would stop world islamic terrorism.

With few exceptions (sorry T.Hanski), it's clear most of us know which titles should be torched.

Given the season of Lent, it's probably more fruitful to revisit and expand on Maximos's Canon of Conservative Literature. Folks could offer books that have helped one in their search for the Truth. This probably means jettisoning the largely meaningless term "conservative".

For what it is worth, I propose; Myles Connolly's spiritual masterpiece, "'Mr. Blue", "Quo Vadis by Henryk K Sienkiewicz and Henri de Lubac's "The Drama of Atheist Humanism"

Ahhh. So your ability to understand is the universal standard. If something is obscure to you, then darn, it must be obscure for everyone!

But you've misunderstood me (must be that nasty differance at work). I don't mean to say that Derrida is difficult to understand, and is therefore bad. It is true that he is difficult to understand, but so is Thomas Aquinas. The point that I make is that where Thomas' goal is to bring light, to remove obstacles to understanding reality, Derrida's goal is to obscure that which has already been understood. This is what deconstruction is about. It's what differance is about. Once you do understand Aquinas, things are clear. To understand Derrida is to find meaning and reality obscured.

I can't follow the last part of this paragraph. You're saying that Derrida says the logos is all about "presuppositions" (propositions?) as opposed to some immediate apprehension of reality? This seems like a non sequitor in terms of Of Grammatology, but I'm hardly an expert on that book.

I'm afraid I can't get drawn in to a protracted discussion on Derrida, since I really just came here to burn his books, not debate them. But he doesn't waste much time in assaulting classical metaphysics in On Grammatology, so start from the beginning and you'll be on to it before long. I'm working from memory myself, since I don't have the book in my library currently (burned it).

The conditional statement made is simply a hypothetical based nowhere in fact but was intended only to examine a point.

It is not stating that killing Muslims would actually result in the prevention of terrorist attacks in reality.

It is basically inquiring into the matter wherein let's suppose that killing Muslims would consequently deter any future terrorist attacks; would that end justify the means?

I was merely thinking along the lines of Kevin's though who subsequently posted: "That rationalization has been served up to justify the most hideous of acts; Hiroshima, euthanasia, warehousing of the poor, etc. etc."

Will familiarity with Georg Berkeley or a doctorate in Philosophy allow me to find the moral nuance within genocide? Come on, T. Hanski emerge from your library of soul deadening books, drop the shallow sophistry that serves only to obscure the truth and choose life. Please.

A prayer for us all;
"Pray always for all the learned, the oblique, the delicate. Let them not be quite forgotten at the throne of God when the simple come into their kingdom."
Evelyn Waugh

No more than Derrida himself is self-contradictory. But I think he would see this as a virtue, whereas I don't. But let me play this out for a moment. Supposing I were to say something like this: "All truths claims are merely plays for power." Now this is a statement that is, on one level, readily understood by anyone who reads it. On a second level it is, of course, self-contradictory in that it implies at the same time a moral judgment against mere plays for power, and yet if the statement is to be true then the statement itself is a mere play for power and by implication should not be trusted on that basis. And around we go. So when I say "to understand Derrida...", I mean only, "to get his message", which, when received, ultimately undermines the objective foundation of knowledge, language and meaning. In seeking to undermine classical metaphysics, he cuts off the branch on which he is sitting. Certainly this is self-contradictory. But without a doctrine of logos, you've just got turtles all the way down. Anti-realists have the privilege of resting on the capital of realistic metaphysics as a support for their anti-realist musings, which is why they can even write at all. Yeah, it's self-contradictory, which is why reading them is dangerous to one's intellectual health, and believing them absolutely fatal to it.

I don't expect to get anywhere with him. I'm just trying to shoo him away from our little book burning party (and that Kyle guy too). But I might be going about it all wrong. Yeah I did check out the blog for a few minutes. I see what you mean.

Iconoclasm is easy. Anyone can do it. All it takes is the ability to sneer. The iconoclast is free from the burden of having to build anything. As any child knows, it's much easier to tear something down than to build something. Any knucklehead with a ball and crane can destroy a cathedral in a few days time, a work of art that took 200 years to build. But no one is interested in the crane operator. Yet, centuries later, people flock from the world over to tour the cathedral, and to find out just what sort of society is capable of even dreaming up such a thing as the cathedral of Chartres, let alone building it. Just what sort of civilization is capable of such a sustained, common effort that could realize the beauty, magnificence, and transcendence of the Gothic cathedral? The man who journeys three thousand miles to visit the home of the German bomber pilot who dropped the 500 pounder on St. Paul's is more than a bit perverse, wouldn't you say?

Have you been to Chartres? Your Jacques Derrida is rather small in comparison.

Will familiarity with Georg Berkeley or a doctorate in Philosophy allow me to find the moral nuance within genocide?

That I don't know.

Besides, who and where asks you "to find the moral nuance within genocide"? You are getting frantic with figments of your own imagination. Please do relax.

I just pointed out that someone who cheerfully declares his unawareness of George Berkeley while making assertions about consenquentiality makes public his utter ignorance of the subject. He can not be taken seriously any more than someone talking about General Relativity who has never heard of Einstein.

We each have our vocations, Byronicman. Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, are called to build great systems of thought. Others, like Derrida, are there to make sure we don't confuse our buildings with Truth itself. But Derrida is not interested in simply tearing down. He was actually quite affirmative. He deconstructed in the name of and out of love for the undeconstructible. Deconstruction presupposes reconstruction.

Unfortunately, I haven't been to Chartres, but your description has certainly made me want to visit.

We each have our vocations, Byronicman. Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, are called to build great systems of thought. Others, like Derrida, are there to make sure we don't confuse our buildings with Truth itself.

But you don't know what Thomas' moderate realism is do you? It doesn't fall prey to the danger you imagine Derrida tried to save it from.

But Derrida is not interested in simply tearing down. He was actually quite affirmative. He deconstructed in the name of and out of love for the undeconstructible. Deconstruction presupposes reconstruction.

T Hanski,
Are you saying that one has to know who Alfredo Rocco is before one can have an informed opinion on Fascism? Hundreds of millions know first hand Communism is an evil delusion, yet can't tell you a thing about Marx. Are they wrong?

According to Consequentialism the morality of a particular act is contingent on the result achieved. The bombing of a civilian center can thus be termed "good", if it produces the desired effect; victory.

Since the Fall, we have been born with an infinite capacity to rationalize our darkest deeds. It is a tribute to modern man though, that we could construct an entire school of philosophical thought to serve as an intellectual ruse for our worst impulses.

But you don't know what Thomas' moderate realism is do you? It doesn't fall prey to the danger you imagine Derrida tried to save it from.

I didn't say it did. You presume too much.

Nonsense. Laughable nonsense.

Not at all. I'll let Derrida speak for himself:

"I never said everything is linguistic and we're enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language. Anyone who reads my work with attention understands that I insist on affirmation and faith, and that I'm full of respect for the texts I read."

Derrida deconstructed in the hope of that which is to come. Another telling quote of his:

"We are by nature messianic. We cannot not be, because we exist in a state of expecting something to happen. Even if we're in a state of hopelessness, a sense of expectation is an integral part of our relationship to time."

My interpretation of Derrida may be wrong, but I can offer evidence in support of my interpretation.

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation." All of which is pretty darned ironic considering the scorn post-modernists heap upon those who insist that there is a real, objective meaning to the writings of, say, Shakespeare. Or anybody the deconstructionists happen to want to deconstruct.

My interpretation of Derrida may be wrong, but I can offer evidence in support of my interpretation.

Can you?

Let me see what I can whip up for you.

First off, Derrida's wordgames have got you hoodwinked. You don't see what his philosophy actually accomplishes, what its final effect is on the mind that follows it out. The mind is imprisoned in a subjectivity from which it cannot escape, held captive by differance, and bound by the freedom to deconstruct any "text" Everything is a "text" for Derrida, and a text can never come to a resting place in meaning, since differance leaves the enigmatic trace behind which we cannot go.

You don't see the immediate implications of Derrida's disconnecting of knowledge from language, and neither are you recognizing that his statement "we cannot be", means "we cannot know". He does enclose us in language by denying the passive receptivity of the mind to logos. There's no embodiment of truth in philosophy for Derrida, since knowledge and meaning are always deferred. The Logos is knowledge incarnate, and thus, philosophy can be true. But not for Derrida, for whom inherent in the logos doctrine is an unjustifiably phallo-centric submission to presence, based on erroneous presuppositions that must be destroyed.

Kant defended his philosophy on the grounds that he was saving faith for man. But of course his errors destroy faith for the same reason Derrida's do--if one follows out the implications of his philosophy. "Grace builds on nature", you see. But grace cannot penetrate nature if nature is captive to Kant's categories, or to Derrida's differance. So, Derrida's remonstrations
notwithstanding, he makes everything linguistic and encloses in language. If there is any faith available to a Kantian or a Derridean, it is a fideism not worthy or serious intellectual engagement, most especially for a Catholic, which is what you claim to be, is it not?

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation." All of which is pretty darned ironic considering the scorn post-modernists heap upon those who insist that there is a real, objective meaning to the writings of, say, Shakespeare. Or anybody the deconstructionists happen to want to deconstruct.

Ah, Lydia, it is so, what you say. Derrida is the philosopher's Oscar Wilde, a pied piper for the merely bright and intellectually pretentious. There's not an ounce of protein in him, but plenty of poison. To the flames.

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation."

I'm not interested in making Derrida say anything I want or in freeing Derrida from any criticism that may come his way. My interest is in understanding his philosophy. I'm not opposed to criticism of Derrida, either. There's plenty there to criticize. But let's criticize what he actually said, not some fiction that has no correspondence to reality.

If you believe texts have real, objective meaning, then make an attempt to understand the real, objective meaning of Derrida's writings and to criticize that real, objective meaning. If you're not interested in understanding the philosophy of Derrida, fine, but then what basis do you have to say anything about his project?

Gross understatement. The Picture of Dorian Gray belongs in the Canon of Conservative Literature.

Well I certainly agree, I couldn't agree more. I think you take my point though. Wilde should be read in his entirety, but too many take him as a libertine hero, which he was, briefly, in his heyday. But in no way is he a libertine hero. He's a cautionary tale. And, I trust, now with the Lord.

If you believe texts have real, objective meaning, then make an attempt to understand the real, objective meaning of Derrida's writings and to criticize that real, objective meaning.

I think that's what we're doing. But does Derrida's own system (it's not really a system, but I use the term loosely) allow it? The truth is, there's no profit to be had from him. Oh, a seasoned professional may enjoy an excursus into Derrida for occasional distraction and exercise. But life is short, and time is precious. Not enough time for me to waste on the man's relentlessly profuse prevarications. As Maximos has well said:

It would have been better for all the world had they never been written, or, having once been written, that they had been consigned to the flames, so that we could discuss the temperature at which ignorance burns.

I wonder, Kyle, if you are at all familiar with the delightful speculations of Owen Barfield? He's a very minor philosopher, of course, and burdened with an occultism and some Christian heterodoxies which ought to give caution to a sober Catholic. But on the whole he's simply a marvelous read, every one of his books. Not as a main course, but certainly a delectable aperitif. Any man whom C.S. Lewis credits as "the wisest of my unofficial teachers" deserves attention, for my money, at least.

I'm ready to burn some religious book-age: Richard McBrien's Catholicism and Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Here's some ethics lighter fluid: Boston College's own Lisa Sowle Cahill's Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics and her representing GLBT as something needed to be "revisited" by the Church.

Thank you for offering an analysis of Derrida's thought, Byronicman. If I have been hoodwinked by Derrida's word games, you have not yet removed the blindfold covering my eyes. All you have given me is your as of yet unsupported synopsis of Derrida work, much of which differs from my understanding of the man's project. You may be right; I'm open to being persuaded that Derrida's work is bad news, but I need evidence from the texts.

However, as you said, this thread is about naming books for the fire, you have not the time to spend on Derrida’s “relentlessly profuse prevarications,” as you call them, and here I am being something of a troll. I’d love to discuss Derrida’s works, but this seems not to be the time or place. If opportunity presents itself in the future, I’m game.

For the record, I am Catholic, and I am not a Derridean, though Derrida has undoubtedly informed my philosophical thinking.

I haven’t read Owen Barfield, but I’ll look into him. He was an Inkling, right? Thanks for the recommendation.

Well I certainly wouldn't presume to think that I'm the man to persuade you of anything. LIke I said, I just came here to burn some books. But, in the interest of the public good, you are clearly a person of intelligence, and since you have a taste for the speculative, I really think you will enjoy Barfield. In fact, I can almost guarantee it. Yes he was a sometime Inkling, although not an Oxford resident like Tollers and CSL et al. I'd suggest starting with Saving The Appearances and Poetic Diction.

Kyle,
For what it's worth, I suspect you'll find Barfield a treat and a challenge. I think that his Speaker's Meaning and Poetic Diction, are well worth a read. The former turns out to be a linguistic argument against evolution. Try also Lionel Adey's C. S. Lewis's Great War with Owen Barfield, which recounts the three decades long debate between the two. It's both fun and enlightening.
Cheers.

Barfield served as a marvelous corrective to the young CSL. As much as Tolkien was an influence in his conversion, I think Barfield gets too little credit (from others) for really sending Lewis on his way, for straightening him out on the "chronological snobbery" problem which was no small feat.

Michael Bauman--boy, would I love to be involved in a Barfield discussion group. It's seems so hard to find anyone who's interested in him and who knows his books.

Books to Singe but not to consign to the Flames.
I haven't checked out all of the thousands of posts above, but did anybody mention Descartes? A father of both reductionism and skepticism, a forerunner to deviations on subjects such as epistemology and the Self, a influence on unrestrained speculation of the sort that has helped philosophy separate itself from what is derisively called common sense.

Now, now, chaps. I think Descartes gets a bad rap in Catholic circles. I'm going to vote strongly against either singeing or burning him. I'm of the highly controversial point of view that the right sort of modernism (in the sense of 17th and 18th century) is Christianity's best friend. I'm not trying to initiate a debate on this point, merely to raise an objection to any Descartes-burning.

If you are speaking of the sort of modernism that has allowed the sciences to flourish, certainly I'd agree (though it needed the order brought by the medieval synthesis upon which to build). There needed to be a shift towards a greater concentration on efficient causation, which necessarily leads to looking at the atom, or in other words, to stare at one's navel. But then again, it's inevitable that the more man stares at the atoms that "make up" the world, the more apt he is to lose his own proper place in it. So the trade-off is a tough one.

As for Descartes, he isn't execrable. Just mostly wrong. A very nice man though, devout and pious. No flames for him.

The 17th and 18th centuries (and the 19th too, since it gave us Newman) brings us the critical era, and Christianity certainly wins big as a result. If that's what you mean by "the right sort of modernism", then I'd agree.

Christianity never recovered from Descartes and the whole host of fictions that sprung forth from him and his cohorts during their construction of the EnDarkenment.

Let the fire rage!

It's not all Descartes fault. There was a general fatigue in Christendom, and someone had to shake things up, even if not entirely in the right direction. Modern criticism has given St. Thomas back to the world, and for that we should all be grateful.

If anybody starts dissing Locke, much less recommending burning him, I'll refer him to the old thread in which I went to the mat for Locke and just lazily not go to the mat again. Just so's y'all know I'm not backing down on that one if I keep quiet. :-)

An ill-advised firewall has set-up around John Locke, cooling off the esprit de corps of our bonfire.

The case against Locke is well-known and I offer nothing original. He created a fantastically benign state of nature. Populated it not with a human beings enmeshed in a web of tribal, familial and religious obligations, but with an abstraction; the innately self-sufficient, free and equal individual. He wrote this fiction to support his theory of consent; government was established on the basis of the individual's voluntary agreement and because it served his self-interest.

One can laud Locke for his end-product - our Constitution - and ignore his embarrassingly flawed understanding of human nature and his anti-Christian narrative; "That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended." But, Locke's conservative defenders can't have it both ways forever.

Locke's contribution to Liberal individualism and it's wonderland of abstract, universal rights is immense. At some point those troubled by the practices of our post-Christian society; legal abortion, state-sanctioned mercy -killing and same-sex marriage, will have to honestly grapple with Locke's legacy in it's entirety.

Soon, warmer heads will prevail and the "Second Treatise of Government" will find it's way to the flames.

On Locke, no fire, no singing. Any man who could defend private property and speak of overthrowing a malevolent government deserves to be spared.

As for abstraction; that's what philosophers do, they abstract. They establish essential, hypothetical, or test conditions, foundational situations, singularities, to isolate principles,thought experiments, and particular aspects and practices germane to the many divisions within philosophy. What subsequent readers and interpreters do after that is their responsibility.

Descartes is a different sort. Not that he was the first but his reductionism provided an impetus to modern philosophy that in too many circles led to a sheltered and restricted cognitive nihilism . His position was such that a groundwork offered to later thinkers created or influenced a weakened epistemological base, at least among the more than willing, a not insignificant number.

Locke offered relief to the tradition of Hobbes. He wrote with clarity and established a counterpoise to the claims of already existing central and unchecked power. Less needed in England but still important as well as influential elsewhere.

Because I live in Europe and keep a job I am late with my comment. Also, I am presently without a computer so have to use the public library computer to access the internet and I don't have too much time for that.

Are you saying that one has to know who Alfredo Rocco is before one can have an informed opinion on Fascism? Hundreds of millions know first hand Communism is an evil delusion, yet can't tell you a thing about Marx. Are they wrong?

Hundreds of millions? Well, I grew up under communism and don’t remember meeting anyone who had never heard of Marx. But, I admit I may have been unlucky. On the other hand I think it totally inconceivable that anyone would write about communism, even to a blog, who can't tell you a thing about Marx.

Otherwise your analogy is absurd. Marxism or Fascism are totalitarian ideologies which invade and controll every aspect of life of societies and individuals, no one can hide from it certainly not ignore it. But consequentialism has never been anything more than a moral THEORY. One can argue for or against it if one is philosophically inclined, or like most of people spend entire life in blissful ignorance of it. On the other hand, it is expected that one who ventures into such subtle subject like General Relativity, or consequentialism should know more than gossips – like the one when you aver that ”According to Consequentialism the morality of a particular act is contingent on the result achieved. The bombing of a civilian center can thus be termed "good", if it produces the desired effect; victory.” What a crude carricature!

Look, you barged in the short exchange I had with Scott W and communicated some wildly inaccurate rumor about consequentialism - a subject, as you inadvertently admitted, you have never bothered to even superficially investigate. Not in the least embarrassed by giving away your ignorance, you changed into higher gear and indicted consequentialism with the standard list of worst evils like genocide, euthanasia, Hiroshima bombing and a few more. You could have included global warming, pollution and obesity - it wouldn’t have made the list much more nonsensical. It is not difficult to see that you are making all that noise to divert attention from your blunder.

Consequentialism, like other theory of morality has its critics and supporters. Indeed, a few serious moral philosophers attack logical inconsistency within the theory and as far as I understand they may be right. Still none of them picks up a single genocide and suggests that its author(s), whether in Germany, Russia, Turkey, China, Japan, Nigeria, Rwanda, to mention a few, acted “under the influence” of consequentialism. And considering that genocide is as old as the human race while consequentialism was first formulated only two hundred fifty years ago it would be a bit of a stretch to make it responsible for the things that occurred prior to its beginning.
But if you think you know a case of a genocide brought about by consequentialism I do strongly encourage you to make its analysts aware of it.

Scott W.,
You may say much for or against The Prince, but to say that it is in any way ”consequentialist” is hillarious. The Prince never pretends to be a moral theory - like consequentialism. In fact it never pretends to be moral at all. Not more than, for example, ”The Art of War” of Sun Tzu (would you burn it too?).
It is a practical set of advices to a ruler be it a prince, chieftain, or even a mafia boss. It is cynical, clever, with great psychological and political insight and quite fascinating, but consequentialist…?

And, just for the record, I am not a supporter of consequentialism, (or any other moral theory).

"Any man who could defend private property and speak of overthrowing a malevolent government deserves to be spared."

I believe this minimalist defense to fail our fire-resistant requirements. Even the anti-democratic elites of the European Union, or our own home-grown Statists find flame-protection under this shallow cover.

Locke's foundational situation is at odds with reality and is a fiction. A philosophy that "isolates" rather than integrates is dangerous, especially when it's a thought experiment grounded in a decidedly un-conservative view of human nature.

"What subsequent readers and interpreters do after that is their responsibility."
Again, we want it both ways; praise him for some achievements, absolve him for other aspects, while cutting off an honest exploration of how we arrived at our present historical moment.

The bonfire is a step towards building a more just social order than the one we groan under now. This
means tracing our steps backwards and testing the assumptions of the civilization that repalced Christendom. Locke appears eminently burnable.

kevin, perforce a thought experiment is a fiction, you are guilty of circularity, redundancy, & attempted mis-characterization.

There is nothing wrong per se with thought experiments. The wrongness would depend on it's premises and conclusions, i.e. Brains in a vat, a lineal descendant of Descartes BTW.

>"Mimimalist defense"

As for statists here and abroad; "taking cover", I'm sure you will realize upon due reflection is not the same as believing and defending. You ought not to be impetuous in your posts.

Regarding your description of my wanting it both ways; note your words "absolve him for other aspects". But Kevin do you believe in inter-generational guilt, visiting the sins of the father, corrupted blood lines, etc. I absolve Locke of nothing, rather I point out, and in general, that subsequent interpreters can misuse an earlier writers work. I make a clear distinction between the two, not a having-it-both- ways absolution. I can understand your confusion if you believe in reincarnation, but otherwise ???

I'm not at all sure why, or if in fact you do, in part blame Locke for a weakened Christianity. He was a believing Anglican, though somewhat of a latitudinarian, He thought Christ should be accepted as God's Messiah, perhaps not enough for the taste of some but hardly a disciple of French cynics and hardly a precursor or excuse for the aggressive atheism and secularizing that we confront today.

His influence was largely benign and among others touched the Founders, for whom I hope, you have a minimal distaste.

I am in unreserved favour of consigning the Two Treatises of Government to the flames; the First, because in it, Locke commits, apparently without the slightest glimmer of self-consciousness, the grotesque hypocrisy of arguing against what he takes to be a theory of absolute and arbitrary power, in the name of the Whiggish political economy, itself naught but the product of arbitrary and abusive power; the Second, because, as I have alluded above, Locke does not so much defend the institution of private property as proffer a legitimating myth, by which the coercive displacement of one scheme of property-relations by another could be justified: Locke baptized a series of oppressions and usurpations and called their commission "rights". In historical context, later employments of the Lockean rhetoric notwithstanding, the Two Treatises were Whig agitprop, nothing more. To the flames they go.

A philosophy that "isolates" rather than integrates is dangerous, especially when it's a thought experiment grounded in a decidedly un-conservative view of human nature.

So he believed all of us were the property of God, opposed despotic abuses of power, favored limited government aimed towards the public good, and stated the fundamental law of nature is that mankind is to be preserved. That is fairly radical.

johnt,
"There is nothing wrong per se with thought experiments. The wrongness would depend on it's premises and conclusions,"

I've already stated Locke's conception of nature and his fictional individual are false. Reality not false premises or ideology provide a better basis for constructing any form of government. You've yet to offer a rebuttal to either charge.

I apologize for any discomfort this may cause you, so take your time. I'll slowly marinade Locke and await your response.

Maximos, "That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted by force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren, whereas their offense is greater," etc & etc. Guess who?

"Arbitrary, abusive, usurpations", oppressions", I don't think so. As for Whiggery, think of it as part of a process of historical, political, and economic evolution, unsavory in an anachronistic way but as with the invention of the wheel, an element of that delightfully slow thing we call progress. And I might add, the remnants of which could still be found in our own founding period. Think of Burke's organic change and dampen the fire.

Kevin, I take it you like having your head banged against the wall, one can never have enough lumps, can one.
I have made more than a few points about Locke, I made a few more about what philosophers do, only one of which was thought experiments, and you're now still strung out on that. Worse, you have taken to condescending to me, which I surmise in your case is the response of a man left to bluffing, substance being in short supply.
Which, if you don't mind, others seem to have noticed as well.

If you must be sorry for anything be sorry for contributing to my wasting my time.

If you must respond to this, and I know you must, why don't we change the subject.
May I suggest Berkeley and consequentialism.

John, that is simply the point: on no fair reading of the history of early modern Britain was the transition from the feudal and hierarchical order to the Whiggish and commercial one merely a matter of gradualistic evolution. Whatever might be said in favour of early modern capitalism, it was manifestly a consequence, not of the arithmetical expansion of trade, nor of the privileges of medieval towns, or indeed any such thing, but of confiscations, violences, enclosures, deprivations, and oppressions, all sanctified, both during the performance and retrospectively, as 'improvement' - the reconfiguration of societal structures towards the end of producing greater exchange-values. While I freely own that, in certain material respects, we are beneficiaries of the productive capacities thus fortuitously generated, as I am no consequentialist, I cannot regard the intentions (ie., the actions actually performed by the relevant actors at the time) of the so-called 'improvers', the Whigs, as morally licit. Wealth is no just cause for the destruction of an entire social order, nor of the resultant political and economic oppressions of the peasantry; it was simply wrong, wrong, wrong to at once deprive peasants of their customary rights of self-provisioning upon commons, to threaten them with the noose should they disobey such illicit orders, and to compel them to accept wage-labour which left them worse off materially than they would have been otherwise, all in the name of that bitch-goddess, utility. That is merely one aspect of the situation, of course; but I'll say nothing about the complicity of Whiggism in exacerbating consequences of the Irish famine, which ought, of itself, to suffice to place Whiggism in the roster of sanguinary progressive creeds. Nor of the documented influence of the imperial impulse, the impulse to justify conquering and dispossessing the indigenous inhabitants of foreign lands, upon Locke's work.

As for the quotation, that is quite delectable. I think only that Locke's role as Whig propagandist outweighs his better moments.

The fact, that otherwise intelligent men, take seriously the works of Ayn Rand, both amazes and irritates me. With the exception of 'Capitalism the Unrealized Ideal' I nominate her works for a place in the fire pit.

johnt,
Here's my argument;
1)Locke may have been a Christian, but his theory wasn't. His state of nature was in contrast to the Bible's creation story. While he doesn't deny the existence of God, his social compact omits the relationship of God to man in it's construction.

2)Our institutions work best when formed by a Christian understanding of human nature, not mere philosophical speculating.

3)Locke's legacy includes inventing the isolated, autonomous individual - the basis for the Liberal Tradition. And much of our current woes.

4)Those who desire a social order unblemished by Christian anthropology can rightfully claim Locke as a spiritual ancestor in their efforts to build a "neutral" State.

5)You mention Burke, but he offered instead, the Christian view of society as being made up of the living, the dead and the unborn. Needless to say, the French philosophes preferred their Locke straight up and without his fellow Whig's corrections.

6)I conceded Locke's contribution to our Constitution, yet the Christianity of our Founders served to leaven that contribution. Yet, I also think Locke's presence is part of the design flaw that accounts for our current crisis.

Maximos, a thoughtful response, thanks.
However and to keep it short; Just where is Locke involved and where does he explicitly condone, I say condone, such practices as you mention? Where is his hand in this unsavory list?

The quote I give, and which in a manner you like, serves no point whatsoever if restricted and aimed at rampant Whiggery. I can only read it in one way, and keeping his inclusion of magistrates in mind as I hoped you would, and that is of a blanket defense of property, a bedrock of individual, not Whig, liberty.

We may have reached a deadlock here so allow me to refer to what may be called historical analysis. Pretentious I know.

Locke had spent several years in France. Do you not think that in that time he observed the supine state of the French nobility?
Their very degradation before a Hobbesian monarch with the ramifications of subservience of one and all, rich and poor, titled and peasant?

If we are to inveigh against greed and power it serves us well to place our criticism within a framework of time and place, to see outside a particular location and therefore the better to understand it.

The seeds of reform, improvement, and progress within a constitutional setting lay within the division of power that occurred in England. In France we observe a destroyed nobility, fated to flee their country, find their heads on the block, or enlist in the forces of Revolution. And the immediate heirs to this lack of slow reform were the sans-culottes.

A restricted vision can magnify both the good and the bad, depending on the luggage we carry within us. I recall reading Voltaire's comments on visiting England, of which I'm sure you're aware. For him and in his time there was no question of where the seeds of liberty, harmony, peace and progress had been planted, and where they would continue to grow. Imperfect and slow but grow they did, and at least in small part, due to Locke and others.

I said short and here I am going on and on.

Whatever the case against early Whiggism, and I think it mixed, Locke's writings on government, laws, and freedom, stand on their own, untainted by the excesses of others, justly honored through time.

Now, and only in the interests of both selfish and obligatory needs, I will bow out.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):